Reserved Judgment — intentional damage — Crimes Act 1961, s 269(2)(b) — Evidence Act 2006, s 137. The defendant pleaded not guilty to a charge of intentional damage. He was alleged to have damaged vehicles belonging to EQC by spraying them with a liquid solvent. There was no direct evidence implicating the defendant in the offending. The prosecution case was built on CCTV footage, scientific evidence as to the nature of the liquid used in the attack, eyewitness accounts and a police interview. The defendant had argued that there was no case to answer, saying there was insufficient evidence against him and that one of the witnesses was unreliable. The court found the case against the defendant relied wholly on circumstantial and opinion evidence. The court went about deciding the case by examining the undisputed evidence - the eyewitness accounts plus the CCTV footage. The footage showed a van clearly identifiable as belonging to the defendant. The defence raised concerns about the timing of the offending, and whether it was the defendant who was driving the van when the offending occurred. However the court found that there were enough proven facts and enough evidence to conclude that the defendant had driven the van at the relevant time and had committed the offending. The court found the charge proved and reserved sentencing for a later date.